Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

ISSN: 0096-3402 (Print) 1938-3282 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbul20

Why Another Cyclotron?

Lee A. Dubridge

To cite this article: Lee A. Dubridge (1949) Why Another Cyclotron?, Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 5:6-7, 201-203, DOI: 10.1080/00963402.1949.11457080

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1949.11457080

Published online: 15 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbul20
WHY ANOTHER CYCLOTRON?
Lee A. DuBridge
The following address was given at the University of Rochester
on March 29, on the occasion of the dedication of the new
130-inch cyclotron. Professor DuBridge, formerly head of the
Physics Department at the University of Rochester, and wartime
Director of the Radiation Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, is now President of the Californio Institute of
Technology.
HEN we built our first 27-
W inch cyclotron at Rochester in
1935-36, I often used to be
asked the questions, why build a cyclo-
tron? Of what use is it? Why smash
the atom anyway? In many a speech
given before various groups around
the city of Rochester I tried to set
forth the answer.
What was the answer then? And
what is it now?
Curiously enough the answer -
though it is a little easier to give
today-is basically the same as it was
then.
We were not smashing atoms in
1937 to make an atomic bomb or a
nuclear power plant. The idea never
entered our heads even in our wildest
dreams. Our little Rochester cyclotron
was not built with any particular prac-
tical end in view. It was built because
a new field of science was then open-
ing up, and the cyclotron provided a
powerful new tool for exploring this
field. Our objective was only to make
a little excursion into this unknown
area-to add maybe a little bit to man's
knowledge about it.
Ever since men first appeared on
this earth they have been prying into
the unknown. This is the outstanding
characteristic which distinguishes man
from beast--this insatiable curiosity.
We are all born with it-and curiosity
is one of the earliest evidences of
dawning intelligence in children. If
many a growing adult loses his child-
hood curiosity, this is only a matter
for great sadness. There is so much
to know in the world that a person
who has lost his curiosity has ceased
intellectually to live.
Man's curiosity, of course, may take
many forms. Some men become ex-
plorers into unknown areas on the
earth's surface-the Arctic, the Ant-
arctic, the jungles of Africa, the top
of Mt. Everest. Others have a burn-
ing curiosity to know more about how
men lived in past times, or to under-
stand the basic factors governing the
way in which men live together today.
Others of us are just curious about
what our neighbors are doing. All of
us are curious about what goes on be-
hind the Iron Curtain in Europe. Any
blank wall is always a challenge to
investigate.
Then there are some individuals
whose curiosity leads them to the ex-
ploration of the laws of nature. Anoth-
er iron curtain, which until a few
years ago, obscured our vision about
what goes on inside the atomic nu-
cleus, was an irresistible challenge
to many men to find methods of pene-
trating that curtain, and learning the
nuclear secrets.
In the 1930's the cyclotron proved
itself a superb weapon for piercing
this nuclear curtain. Therefore, it was
no bold stroke of genius which led us
to build a cyclotron at Rochester in
1935. Quite the contrary, we were sim-
ply yielding to an irresistible tempta-
tion.
Then in 1939 as we were busily and
happily engaged in our game of punc-
turing holes in the nuclear iron cur-
tain, the rumblings of trouble in
Europe culminated in the blinding flash
of the beginning of hostilities. For
several years we physicists, like every-
one else, had been only dimly con-
scious of trouble in Europe and felt
that it would probably not affect us.
And yet we were uneasy. From time
to time, distinguished physicists from
Europe had been migrating to this
country, some ejected because of their
race from their positions in Germany,
others simply no longer able to tolerate
the threat to intellectual freedom which
was daily growing there. We welcomed
these distinguished additions to the
American scientific family.
From these men we gradually learned
enough to realize that the outbreak
of hostilities in Europe was more than
a far-away storm. If the Nazis should
succeed in their goal of world con-
quest, then intellectual freedom, per-
sonal and political freedom, and man's
insatiable curiosity to know would be
promptly suppressed. There would be
no science and there would be very
little of anything else that we cher-
ished if Hitler ruled the world. Cu-
riosity is a dangerous thing to a dic-
tator, to an'V dictator. One of the first
things he does is try to suppress it.
It is not surprising, therefore, that
the scientists were among the first
to volunteer their services to their
country to prevent the spread of a
world dictatorship. I need not repeat
here the story of what went on dur-
ing the war years. Everyone is fa-
miliar with it.
At the end of the war, when the
information about the atomic bomb,
about radar, about proximity fuses,
and many other technological achieve-
ments which had played such an im-
portant role in the victory, was re-
leased to the public, no one any longer
needed to apologize for being a scien-
tist, or for being interested in re-
search. Scientific research, because of
its practical contributions, suddenly be-
came respectable. Scientists became
almost national heroes. New develop-
ments in scientific research became
front-page news. Even the man in the
street now realized that the quiet and
seemingly highly abstruse work of
the scientist in his laboratory might
be significant after all. It had some
practical use. It helped win a war.
OW what about all this sudden,
N shall I say, notoriety which came
to science and to scientists? Was it
good, or was it bad?
Frankly, though the answer is a
little bit of both, the effects were good
on the whole. Unfortunately, a few
scientists (and fortunately only a few)
were not as cautious in their public
statements on the problems of econom-
ics, politics, international relations, as
they usually were on the problems of
201
science. On the other hand, it was a
good thing to have the scientists jarred
into the realization that they could no
longer isolate themselves from the
world, within the four walls of their
laboratories. There were national and
international issues arising which in-
volved, not only the facts of science,
but also the activities and freedom
of scientists. On these issues the voice
of the scientists needed to be raised,
and it was raised in what was gen-
erally an intelligent and effective way.
HE net result of the war, I think,
T was that scientists are today some-
what more human individuals, some-
what more intelligent citizens, some-
what broader minded in their under-
standing of nonscientific problems,
somewhat more willing to play their
part as citizens than they were be-
fore the war.
The effects of war on science itself
were also both good and bad. Un-
fortunately, the spectacular achieve-
ments of the war years led many
people to believe that the sole func-
tion of science was to develop either
weapons of war or the gadgets of
peace. Radar, rockets, and the atomic
bomb, together with plastic automo-
biles, nuclear power plants, and tele-
vision sets were regarded as the sole
products of science, the reason for its
existence, or the chief currency with
which to measure its value. The atom-
ic bomb being an obviously impossible
achievement, it now became evident to
many people that any impossible
achievement could also be accomplished
by science. It was all only a matter of
money and laboratories. If men wanted
to cure cancer or ride a rocket to
the moon, science should accomplish it
tomorrow, and if tomorrow did not see
the miracles accomplished, it was be-
cause of the inefficiency or the lazi-
ness of the scientists, or because the
government did not furnish enough
money.
All of this is bad for science, for
it represents a misunderstanding of its
aims, methods, and function. And since
science depends upon the general pub-
lic for support, it is important that the
public appreciate what science is for,
what it can and cannot do. This cloud
of misunderstanding about the func-
tion of science was an unfortunate re-
sult of the war.
On the other hand, the public pres-
tige which has been accorded to sci-
ence and scientists in these postwar
years has its good aspects. It is true
that many people do understand more
202
clearly than before what the role of
science is in modern civilization, and
on their understanding the future
hopes of science will rest. But be-
cause this understanding is not uni-
versal I never apologize for talking
about it again.
HIS brings me to the task of try-
T ing to state as clearly and con-
cisely as possible my own conception
of the place of science in our society.
Just what are the science laboratories
of our universities trying to do? What
will be the results of their work?
What is the purpose of the great sci-
entific laboratories of industry-of the
government? Why has a great new
cyclotron been built at a cost of over
a million and a half dollars, and with
an annual budget approaching a half
million dollars a year at the Univer·
sity of Rochester?
To state this problem clearly, we
must distinguish between the role of
what we have come to call pure or
basic science, and the role of what
we call applied science. We must dis-
tinguish, in other words, between sci-
ence itself and the applications of
science.
P OSSIBLY I can explain this best
by referring to an analogy. A steel
mill is built to make steel. As the
bars of steel come out of the mill
they are not labeled as to whether
they shall be used for battleships or
tanks or trucks or guns or plows.
Steel is a raw material. It will be fab-
ricated into whatever structures, gad-
gets, devices, or weapons are most in
demand at the moment. Much of the
steel will be wasted. £orne will go
into useless devices, but much will go
into things that improve the happi-
ness, comfo1t, or security of men and
women.
Similarly, a science laboratory is
a producer of raw material. That
raw material is knowledge about the
physical world. It may be knowledge
about the structure of the atomic nu-
cleus, about the function of genes or
chromosomes, or viruses or enzymes.
It may deal with the propagation and
behavior of electromagnetic waves, or
with the chemical structure of certain
compounds. The main purpose of the
scientific laboratory is to produce
knowledge in some field. It is to ex-
plore the unknown. It is to elicit a
few more of nature's secrets.
Now it is the universities of the
world in which this production of new
knowledge is proceeding most active-
ly. It is in the universities that the
goal of seeking knowledge for its own
sake is the primary and not a sec-
ondary goal. It is in the universities
that men and women are free to ex-
plore whatever fields excite their cu-
riosity, to seek whatever new knowl-
edge challenges them as individuals,
to make this knowledge available to
the world at large.
How is all this knowledge to be
used? Here again, as in the case of
steel, our knowledge does not come
labeled as to whether it shall be used
for good or evil purposes, whether it
shall be used to improve or degrade
the happiness of men, whether it shall
be used to devise weapons of war
or cures for a dread disease. Though
knowledge is often sought specifically
because of the hope that it will be
useful in a particular practical way,
it is frequently true that knowledge
sought for one purpose is found even-
tually to be of more use for a totally
different purpose. Roentgen was not
playing around with evacuated glass
tubes in order to find a way of mend-
ing broken bones, but the X-rays which
he discovered proved one of the most
powerful tools ever developed for med-
ical work. In short, how knowledge is
used is usually determined after the
knowledge has been secured and not
before. The first task is to gain knowl-
edge. The second is to determine how
to apply it.
ERE is where the laboratory of
H applied science comes in-such as,
for example, the great industrial lab-
oratories of this country and many of
the government laboratories. Their
primary task is not to seek knowledge
but to use knowledge already gained
to solve a particular practical prob-
lem. This, of course, requires scien-
tific skill and competence of the high-
est order. It is just as important
for mankind that knowledge be put
to use beneficially as that it be dis-
covered in the first place. But dis-
covering primary knowledge and put-
ting it to use are somewhat different
kinds of tasks. The world has great
need of the men and laboratories to
do both. But one must be careful not
to glamorize the application of knowl-
edge to the detriment of the search
for knowledge itself. We are in seri-
ous danger of doing just that today
in this country. It is easy to see the
importance and to raise the money for
developing a cure for cancer or for
polio, or for developing new and more
effective weapons of defense, for de-
veloping new industrial products which
will be of use in everyday life. Huge
sums are devoted annually by the gov-
ernment and by private industry for
exploiting to the full the applica~ons
of scientific knowledge. And this is
right and proper and necessary.
UT are we giving adequate atten-
8 tion to those laboratories and
those individuals whose goal is the dis-
covery of new knowledge itself? If
we do not, our knowledge will be used
up and we will be trying to erect a
superstructure without first building
the foundation. And anybody knows
that this is nonsense.
Let us be more specific. What are
going ·to be the practical results of
the experiments which will be carried
out in coming yer.rs with the great
new cyclotron at Rochester? The plain
truth is that no one can possibly pre-
dict. It is not even sensible to waste
effort and time to make predictions.
The only prediction one can make with
assurance is that whatever predictions
one does make will be wrong. If you
are expecting the cyclotron to yield
the design for a new and more power-
ful atomic bomb you are almost sure
to be disappointed. If you are expect-
ing it to bring- about the more rapid
development of nuclear power plants
or a cure for cancer or a rocket which
will go to the moon, you will be dis-
appointed also.
What this cyclotron will certainly
do is just one thing-it will yield to
the skilled physicists who work with
it new knowledge about the behavior,
the structure, the characteristics of
atomic nuclei. And we can be sure
of one thing more: that, as new knowl-
edge of atomic nuclei comes out of
this laboratory and many other lab-
oratories throughout the world, sooner
or later this new knowledge as a
whole will have some striking, im-
portant, and valuable uses to men.
This laboratory here, and other uni-
versity laboratories around the world,
are laying a foundation. It is not yet
clear what kind of a superstructure
will be built thereon. But it is clear
that no superstructure at all will be
built unless or until the foundation is
laid.
And at this point I must stress
another thing about knowledge. Too
often we judge the value of knowledge
by the new machines or gadgets or
weapons it provides. But a more far-
reaching effect of knowledge is its
effects on men's minds. Is it an ac-
cident that the growth of science dur-
ing the past three hundred years has
been accompanied by the greatest eman-
cipation of men's minds the world
has ever seen? Is the fact that ma-
chines have been developed to free
our muscles of labor more important
than that ideas have been developed
to free our minds of superstition and
fear? Knowledge is a dangerous thing
-not because it leads to atomic bombs
but because men who can understand
the universe do not want to be slaves.
Knowledge is a wonderful thing not
because it provides autos and radios
but because it makes men free.
F IN ALLY, at this laboratory, be-
cause it is a university laboratory,
one more important result will be
achieved, namely, young men and
women will be gaining a superb edu-
cation in the field of physical science.
The advance of civilization depends
upon knowledge, but even more it de-
pends upon men and women. As Rob-
ert Oppenheimer has said, "the best
way to spread or transmit informa-
tion is to wrap it up in a person."
The best way for an industry to gain
knowledge in a new field is not to
buy a book, but to hire a man. The
men and women trained here and at
other universities throughout the coun-
try will be the makers of tomorrow.
The knowledge which they help to un-
cover here while pursuing their edu-
cation may be less important to them
or to the world than the fact that
they have learned here the techniques
of how to gain new knowledge and
how to put that knowledge to work.
And so as we celebrate the comple-
tion of this great new tool for re-
search, let us not think of it as
so many tons of iron and copper, as
The Bulletin's regular report on the
activities of the United Nations
Atomic Energy Commission has
been omitted this month for lack
of space. A complete account will
be published in the August issue.
so many hundred million electron volts
of energy, and so many million dol-
lars invested in a great machine.
Rather let us think of this great cyclo-
tron as a symbol of the double-ended
function of our universities-the search
for truth and the education of men
and women. This cyclotron is not an
end in itself, but a means to an end.
The knowledge it helps to uncover will
widen the horizon of men's minds. The
students who work with it will go
out better able to make their contribu-
tion to a stronger nation, a more peace-
able and a happier world.
AEC Announces
Changes in Personnel
Several changes of personnel have
been announced by the U. S. Atomic
Energy Commission. On April 21, the
Commission made public the resigna-
tion of Robert F. Bacher, who has ac-
cepted an appointment as head of
the Physics, Mathematics, and As-
tronomy Departments at the California
Institute of Technology. To replace
Mr. Bacher, President Truman has
named Dr. Henry DeWolf Smyth,
Chairman of the Department of Phys-
ics at Princeton University, and author
of the official War Department report,
Atornic Energy for Military PU1·poses.
lVIr. Truman also nominated Gordon
Dean, Professor of Law at the Uni-
versity of Southern California, and
formerly associated with the Depart-
ment of Justice. Mr. Dean is to re-
place W. W. Waymack, who resigned
from the Commission on December 23.
Both of these nominations were con-
firmed by the Senate on May 21. The
terms of these Commissioners expire
June 30, 1950.
The Director of the Security Divi-
sion of the AEC, Rear Admiral John
E. Gingrich, has been recalled to ac-
tive duty in the Navy, and resigned
on May 3. Francis Hammack, Chief
of the Personnel Security Branch, has
been designated as acting Director until
a successor to Admiral Gingrich is
appointed.
On May 9, the AEC announced the
resignation of John C. Franklin as
manager of the Office of Oak Ridge
Operations. Mr. Franklin will re-enter
private business but continue to serve
with the Commission as a consultant
on technical and management matters.
Joseph Volpe, Jr., has been appointed
General Counsel to the Commission, to
succeed Adrian S. Fisher.
203